LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.  
March 18, 2010
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read
Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * Right Wing Gone Wild

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101

Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Reports

Endangering Choice

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   

Share
Posted on Oct 16, 2008

By Ellen Goodman

    NEW HAVEN, Conn.—Do you remember the New Yorker cartoon showing a couple in their living room reading the newspaper? “Gays and lesbians getting married,” reports the husband to his wife, whereupon he adds, “haven’t they suffered enough?”

    This was an arch and ironic commentary on the image of a beleaguered minority actually trying to break into an institution.

    Last week it happened again. Connecticut became the third state, after Massachusetts and California, to let homosexuals break into the institution of marriage. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that even in a state with civil unions, separate wasn’t equal. Anything less than marriage violated equal protection laws.

    This ruling was greeted with cheers from couples who had sued for the right to marry. Among them were the two women, mothers of adopted twins, and two men, one of whom proclaimed cheerily, “We can now register at Home Depot and prepare for marriage.”

    I am fully aware that same-sex marriage is a polarizing issue and an engine for backlash. It’s back on the ballot in three states this November, including California, where couples are rushing to the altar before they can be de-married. But Connecticut is a good reminder of how fast attitudes toward gay rights have changed. And how fast the public image of gays has gone from San Francisco flamboyance to suburban sobriety. The fear-mongering of the “Gay Agenda” is now the wedding registry at Home Depot.

Advertisement

    When the Connecticut decision came down, I was at a Yale Law School conference on “The Future of Sexual and Reproductive Rights.” Here academics and activists were talking about gay rights and abortion as law, and as tools for the culture-war recruiters.

    Stanford law professor Pam Karlan was the first to compare changes in the last two decades. “Gays have come out of the closet,” she said, “and women who’ve had abortions have gone back into the closet.”

    The long slow process of “coming out” means that today nearly everyone knows someone who is gay. Gays are no longer some foreign “them,” especially to younger Americans who are four times more likely than their grandparents to support marriage equality. Even Sarah Palin painted herself “tolerant” during the vice presidential debate and talked about her “diverse” friends and family.

    The long slow process of “going back in” has meant, in Karlan’s words, that “we don’t always know that we know someone who’s had an abortion.” Has the invisibility of these women made it easier to chip away at their rights?

    This change has happened in public as well as private. In 1989, television’s “thirtysomething” was boycotted for a single gay scene. Today, as Yale historian George Chauncey says, “There are many sympathetic gay characters on TV and the movies.” But he adds, “almost no sympathetic characters who are getting abortions.” Hollywood’s heroines from “Juno” to “Waitress” to “Knocked Up” barely think about it.

    The analogy is far from perfect, as I will hear from every pro-life reader who equates abortion with murder. And it’s been a long time, thankfully, since we read stories of victims of illegal abortion. To the degree that the gay rights movement has focused on marriage, it’s seen as intrinsically conservative, even pro-family. On the other hand, an abstract set of abortion rights is framed as an individual choice.

    Moreover, the narrative of same-sex marriage ends with the sound of a champagne bottle popping at a wedding. An abortion, on the other hand, may be followed by an assortment of emotions, but certainly not joy.

    Because we rarely see real women, it’s easy to forget that one out of every three American women has had an abortion by the time she’s 45. As Karlan said, “Look to your right. Look to your left. One of you has had an abortion.” Because we rarely hear from women, it’s easy to forget that over half those women already have children and are making their decisions in that family context.

    Abortion was legalized on the grounds of the right to privacy. And so it remains private. But the more private it is, the more we think it only happens to someone else, someone “unlike us.” The more unlike us she is, the less public support there is for the right. Abortion rights slip away as the woman slips out of sight.

    Here is the conundrum in the closet. For all the lingering opposition to same-sex marriage, being gay is losing its stigma. Having an abortion is being more deeply stigmatized.

    Look to your right. Look to your left. 
   
  Ellen Goodman’s e-mail address is ellengoodman(at)globe.com.
 
    © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group


Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By Paracelsus, October 18, 2008 at 11:39 pm #

I have no problem with choice, but where does this license to reproduce idea come from? Isn’t that just as bad as allowing pharmacists to refuse birth control pills and abortifacients to customers? How would we control people without reproduction licenses? Would we take away their babies or would we forcefully induce abortions? It seems that the authoritarianism of the left is no different than the right.

Report this

By Jim Yell, October 18, 2008 at 11:02 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

We are rapidly destroying the environment not just for ourselves, but for all of Life.

We require license to opporate cars, but nothing but an erection and open legs to make babies.

Overpopulation brings about starvation, oppression and chaos. So how is forcing women to carry pregnancy Pro-Life? It makes no sense.

The motivations of what claims to be Pro-Life should be very suspect. Forcing woman to have babies even pregnancies forced on the woman by violence or intimidation is disgusting, but worse leaves many women in extreme poverty along with the child they were forced to bear.

In an ideal world birth control would always be practiced and abortion would not need to be an issue, but there are many good and bad reason why it doesn’t get practiced. It should remain the womans right to decide when and if abortion is part of their birth control. Men’s opinions should not even enter into it, as Men do not risk health and the difficulties of 9 months of pregnancy, but women do.

Paternalism is nice in theory for the man, but in practice encourages the most disgusting arrogance and mean spiritedness. The long history of patenalism is a long list of failed promises and narcisstic and irresponsible behavior.

Intrusion in a woman’s pregnancy is a device for control and exploitation of the woman. I am surprised that women cooporate as much as they do?

I guess optimism that the male will protect and honor their responsibilities is why. I think it is an optimism that is too frequently not lived up to.

Report this

By Paracelsus, October 18, 2008 at 7:37 am #

Yes, vote for Democrats like Al Gore. Oops, AL Gore was once pro life.

Report this

By purplewolf, October 17, 2008 at 11:18 am #

Only when there are no more wars anywhere on the planet should the thought of banning abortion ever come up.

If all life is so precious, as these brain washed cretins think, then doesn’t it make more sense that before they ban abortion, they stop killing those already here. Why should women be forced to maintain a pregnancy, raise that baby only to become cannon fodder for the power insane leaders of countries? It makes more sense, and a lot less human suffering to never give birth-especially to an unwanted baby and then turn it over to the war mongers. If by having all those wars is one way of helping keep the population down somewhat, birth control by any means is better than blowing a person into little pieces, or are you right to lifers that sadistic?

Report this

By Al, October 16, 2008 at 5:42 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

How long before a church is sued because the minister won’t perform the services. Will it become a hate crime if he refuses. I’m sure the ACLU will sue for free.

Report this

By yours truly, October 16, 2008 at 3:57 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Woman’s Choice

“Based on?”

“Her body, her health, her life.”

“And the right of the fertilized egg?”

“Invented.”

“By whom?”

“Man.”

“Why?”

“To enslave the woman.”

“What’ll break those chains?”

“Yes we can.”

Report this

By purplewolf, October 16, 2008 at 2:58 pm #

What I really want to know is:

What makes these people,especially the political/religious(in word only)people feel that have the right to tell me what to do with my body?

Why do they think they have to impose their views of live onto total strangers?

Will they pay the bills to help cover this added expense of another surplus human on the planet, be it money, resources, time?

Will those of you who oppose abortion choices for others, allow those who believe in the right to choose what is best for them, to come into your personal space and dictate how you will raise your progeny, how many you should be allowed to have, what you should eat, where you live, etc…? Probably not. So what gives you the authority to think you should do it to others?

If you do not believe in abortion, DON’T HAVE ONE! I believe in zero population growth, but I do not force you to only replace yourself and your spouse on the planet. Some of those who breed like rats(scientific fact:the more food is plentiful, the more babies they have and the faster they have them, humans are the exception as they reproduce excessively even when food is scarce) have reproduced themselves and their spouse 9-10X’s+ already. Case example: The Duggars of Arkansas. #18 is on the way and no signs of stopping anytime soon.

It is to bad that Bush has destroyed most of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as it did allow for privacy in our own lives. Now it is only valid is you are not a female, as your uterus belong to the U.S. Government and the religious groups who do not have your best interest in mind.

And as for all those men out there that make the rules(mostly men), they should have no legal say in what a woman does as they are not the ones who have to produce and give birth and in the majority of the births, do all the child care maintenance that goes along with having a baby. In fact many men brag they do absolutely nothing to help with their own children and seen proud of that fact. Case in point: Andres Yates husband. If you do not know of this incident, google it.

Report this

By What!?!, October 16, 2008 at 12:10 pm #

Most women undergoing abortions, a painful and sad event, try to put it behind them and make life choices that prevent having to go through that again.  Maybe better birth control, a change in lifestyle or ending a relationship occurs after. I never met a woman using abortion for birth control.  Like all other social/sexual issues it is a private decision that the woman’s family may not even know about it.  It’s hard to rally around this issue because abortion is perceived as a negative event instead of a choice affirming decision.  The 1 in 3 women that have used their own judgement to have an abortion need to find a way to express and extend this freedom to their daughters or we will surely lose it.

Report this

By hippy pam, October 16, 2008 at 7:53 am #

DO YOU WANT TO RETURN TO “THE STONE AGE?”....If you want to keep your freedoms-your right to be in charge of your bodies-your religion-your right to keep and bear arms…..DO NOT…..I REPEAT….DO NOT…..ALLOW palin[mooosellini/mcshame]mccain in to the white house…..VOTE ANY THING BUT RE-PUKE-LIKIN…..

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!







Number of characters remaining: 4000

Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

 
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2010 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.